{"id":281857,"date":"2018-08-08T06:06:49","date_gmt":"2018-08-07T20:06:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/?p=281857"},"modified":"2018-08-08T06:06:49","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T20:06:49","slug":"abandon-bill-clarifying-casino-panel-powers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/abandon-bill-clarifying-casino-panel-powers\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Abandon bill clarifying casino panel powers\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Office of the Attorney General strongly opposes legislation that seeks to clarify the functions and authority of the Commonwealth Casino Commission, saying it would instead exempt the commission from several laws.<\/p>\n<p>In a letter dated May 25, 2018, that Saipan Tribune obtained only yesterday, Attorney General Edward Manibusan strongly opposed Rep. Joseph Deleon Guerrero\u2019s (R-Saipan) House Bill 20-82, which attempts to clarify and reinforce the authority of the casino commission for its oversight over the casino industry in the CNMI.<\/p>\n<p>Manibusan cited 30 \u201cproblematic\u201d sections of the bill, including provisions that partially exempts the casino commission from the Open Government Act, Administrative Procedures Act, and the Government Liability Act.<\/p>\n<p>\u201c\u2026CCC and its employees and agents are made completely sovereignly immune from suit without any explanation. If the bill is to go forward, the findings must be seriously supplemented so as to specifically address the reasons for the radical departures from established legislative policy to aid the courts in interpreting the bill should it become law,\u201d he wrote. <\/p>\n<p>Manibusan cited over 30 reasons to kill the bill, some of which include the bill\u2019s provision to provide sole regulatory oversight over the casino.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe\u2026language is too broad and could be construed as limiting even the [Department of Finance\u2019s] tax authority and other regulatory agencies such as the Alcohol Beverage Control Board and Department of Public Health Sanitation Bureau,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n<p>He added that a separate provision that would make CCC responsible for judging whether or not documents, data, or information on licenses provided by the commission are \u201csuitable for public inspection\u201d is also problematic.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis [provision] makes the CCC the guardian and judge of all of the information it possesses. There is no judicial oversight to this provision. Taken together, this provision is extremely overbroad and basically exempts all CCC information from disclosure,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>A separate provision in the bill also allows the CCC to conduct hearings and meetings \u201cwith or without public notice, at such times and places, within or without the Commonwealth, as may be convenient.\u201d Manibusan opposed this provision, which also included the provision that the casino commission may have a working meeting and meet in an \u201copen or closed meeting, with or without notice, within or without the Commonwealth, to discuss and deliberate about any matter over which the commission has jurisdiction.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis would essentially remove the CCC from the Open Government Act and Open Meetings Act. This is an extreme measure that would allow the CCC to essentially operate in secret. \u2026The provision empowering the CCC to meet outside the Commonwealth, to meet without notice to the public, etc. are extremely troubling,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n<p>In an Aug. 6, 2018, letter to Senate Gaming Committee chair Sen. Justo S. Quitugua (Ind-Saipan), the clarification is ostensibly necessary for CCC to \u201cconduct its operations in the most effective and efficient manner.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIncluded in [the bill] are appropriate authorities such as funding mechanism, law enforcement authority for the CCC\u2019s Division of Enforcement &amp; Investigations, which resembles other gaming jurisdictions such as Nevada, Massachusetts, New Jersey, to name a few,\u201d wrote commission chair Juan Sablan.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI understand that the OAG issued its opinion regarding [the bill], but most of what he stated bear no legal analysis, rather only his personal policy preferences. It is your decision as a policy-making body to pursue the passage of [the bill] as it address the efficient and effective operation of CCC, the protection of the Commonwealth government and its people, protection of the gaming industry and its patrons, and so much more,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n<p>Quitugua, in an interview with Saipan Tribune yesterday, noted that the gaming committee in their meeting yesterday did not act on the bill. However, he believes that the CCC should be holding some kind of authority to properly oversee the casino to allow them to \u201cexercise and do their jobs diligently as authorized by law.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThey have been in existence for a few years already, so they have implemented and enforced the existing statute. Through their experience as a regulatory body, they are now seeing the need to amend the law so that they can do their job much better,\u201d he told Saipan Tribune. <\/p>\n<p>Commenting on the AG\u2019s letter, Quitugua noted that the committee met with the casino commissioners yesterday to be \u201cclearer and more specific\u201d as to why they want the expanded authority.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe might be making some changes to improve the bill because we also want the commission to do their job diligently as provided by law. If\u2026the existing statute hinders their ability to regulate the sole casino, then it is our duty that such an authority is given to them so that they can do their job accordingly. We will be reviewing everything submitted, including the AG\u2019s opinion,\u201d noted Quitugua.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Office of the Attorney General strongly opposes legislation that seeks to clarify the functions&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[900],"tags":[3126,86,1794,38],"class_list":["post-281857","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-featured","tag-commonwealth-casino-commission","tag-oag","tag-open-government-act","tag-saipan-tribune"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281857","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=281857"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281857\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=281857"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=281857"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=281857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}